söndag 31 oktober 2010

Not true.Jafarey's version of Zoroastrianism was never very popular in Scandinavia.I had not even heard of it until I came to America and met the wonderfully sweet Ali Jafarey himself, who I dearly love but also disagree with on the basic tenets of Mazdayasna.The version of Mazdayasna discussed here on Ushta is the mainstream version within at least European Zoroastrianism.And in any case, none of this affects the defnitions of Philosophy, Religion and Science and the differences between the three. Philosophy is an art form, Religion a social practice tied to certain beliefs, and Science is the social evaluation of hypotheses in relation to physical experiments that can be repeated and verified.UshtaAlexander

2010/10/31 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alexander and Dino,

Alex says that Zarathustra is a great philosopher because he invented Mazda, Asha, Ahoora, etc..etc.. But what IS Mazda, Asha, Ahoora, ..etc.? They are what meaning we mortals give these words depending on who we are and how our minds are working at any particular time. The meanings of these words shifts depending on who is using the word, why, and when. Ostad Jafarey is honest when he says that Mazda means a BIG WISE GUY who sits outside His creation and creates and maintains it just as a shoe maker makes a shoe (we being the shoe and the BIG WISE ONE being the shoe maker). He says this because most (%99.9999) of those who get involved with Zoroastrianism have to work with this GIVEN definition of MAZDA, so he is being honest in saying that this is what you get when you join. Alex, you joined a religion in which this was a given at the time you joined it, are you still staying with the same solemn wows that you undertook when you joined the religion? I do not think so, I think you have moved out of living under the shadow of the BIG ONE being a shoe maker and you being a shoe.

The same is true of Sophia, Sophia is what YOU and I make of it, and when I say "I am a lovers of Sophia", I want My Sophia to love and not any Sophia which is pushed on me down the street. A Philosopher is a Lover of Sophia, a name I equate with Mazda. I live by my definition of what Sophia is to ME, I do not care what Sophia means to the guy who lives next door to me. If you do not get to the level of defining every key word of the school of thought you want to be a teacher in, and stick to that key definition the way you want it, it is best not to pretend to have anything deep to say and just dance with the crowed and have a fun party.

I agree with Alexander.Dear Parviz, the problem with your anti-Jinnism is that, from a philosopher's point of view, it's not really important whether such concepts can be examined and measured scientifically. And I guess that the URGE behind religion is the same as behind philosophy. So rather than oppose philosophy to religion, we should see the difference religion/philosophy and science.

Philosophy in a contemporary sense is defined as THE INVENTION OF CONCEPTS. It is an artistic rather than a scientific endeavor. Philosophers are authors of creatuve texts, just like writers and poets. What they do is literary work and not science.

This is the definition that people as varied as Derrida, Habermas, Deleuze, Rorty and Heidegger have all been following.Whether these concepts are then functional or not is up to users such as artists and scientists to decide.But this is what philosophers do. As I believe Zarathushtra did very much too. Concepts like "ahura", "mazda", "haurvatat"., "asha" and even "mazdayasna" itself are his innovations and should be seen as such. Linguistic tools!UshtaAlexander

2010/10/30 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino,

I respect very much what you have to say usually, so I read over and over what you had written below and I think I am getting your point. However, Calvin influenced many lives with his teachings and so did Spinoza. Yet I feel that Calvin does not deserve to be called a philosopher while Spinoza does. There must be something in Sophia that connotes clarity of rational thinking. If we abdicate this link to clarity and rationality, then we may as well talk about the great philosopher Gangizkhan! I get your point, but do you get mine? I think all those who try to enter the realm of Philo-Sophia or Mazda-Yasna through the back door of calling their hocus pocus mental masturbations Philo-Sophia deserve to be thrown out on their ears (as far as our school of Mazda-Yasna is concerned). What says you?

I am saying something new here, please stay with me. I am saying that if someone is preoccupied with the Jinns all his or her life and talks and writes about Jinns and their behavior extensively, can we ever call him/her a "Philosopher" of Jinns? Now I want to expand that to the realm of religion and say that when religious person preach and teach all their lives about what will happen to our souls after we die, can we call such persons "Philosophers"? I say NO, what says you?

I don't share their belief in Jinnism, either. But please let me get a few things straight. Radical positivism is no proper understanding of modern science. Ontologically speaking, we can't make a difference between the "realness" of solid mountains and the "realness" of fleeting ideas that we have already forgotten about. Only the effects of such mountains and ideas can be measured scientifically. That is, such Jinns can be real in the sense that the unshakeable belief in such spooky entities will inspire someone to undertake certain actions that will influence their surroundings in one way or the other. It is the effects of their words and actions that are scientifically real. But we still don't know anything about the "reality" of their underlying beliefs.

And there is a branch of philosophy that exclusively deals with the realm of the fairies. (not that kind! the kind that have wings and live under mushrooms). Also the branch of philosophy called Jinnology that concerns itself with the realities that exist in the world of Jinns.

As ussal you are wrong,. philosophy is the Love of Wisdom and many philosophers discuss religion. In fact there is a recognized branch of philosophy called Religious Philosophy which is even taught and discussed at the university level.

måndag 18 oktober 2010

Call it whatever you want, but the mere fact that rituals in themselves are criminal to perform is enough of an argument to keep them from the public arena. There are other reasons too. As I have said before, we are not expected to perform sexual acts in public (unless we are pornographic actors), then why should we always be expected to perform our religious rituals - that are if anything even more private - in public?

There was no bull and no fight in Manicheism and Mithraism was definitely a much stronger influence in the western Mediterranean than Manicheism. Bullfighting was not a Moorish invention, but dates back to Roman times prior to Manicheism. If anything, it even has Minoan roots (the hellenistic aspect of Mihraism rather than its Persian origin). So I stand by my argument, unconvinced Manicheism has any major part in bullfighting culture.

UshtaAlexander

2010/10/18 Parviz Varjavand - Dölj citerad text -

Dear Alex,

I claim that you are wrong and that there was plenty of Manicheism amongst the Moors and in France. Also, please do not link drinking of Haoma (hoom) to Mithraism, that would be a betrayal of the tenants of a great heritage and bringing it down to a Rastafarian level. I know that in north Europe, they used to feed a mildly toxic but highly hallucinogenic mushroom first to cows and then drink the urine of that cow in order to get high. Maybe that is what you have re-discovered. At least keep me posted if something good to drink is brewing! I am game!

Bullfighting is definitely a remnant of Mithraic practices.Producing and drinking haoma is illegal in U.S., Iranian, Indian and European law. This fact is enough to assure us that Mithraism is and can not be a public activity but must be practiced in strict privacy.UshtaAlexander

2010/10/17 Parviz Varjavand

Thanks Alex for getting the humor intended.

But this is how the Church got rid of so much of Mithraism in the first place. Under torture by the Inquisition, they made the Pagans and Mithraists who were probably very decent persons confess to all kind of gross things in their "Black Mass" and got away with it. There is no evidence whatsoever that a bull was actually killed in a Mithraic ritual. You can not kill a bull with a stab on its shoulder. Bullfights are probably a Manichean ritual trying to show the dominion of what they refer to Higher Faculties (praying to the Maker in the skies) over Lower Faculties (having sex and building homes).The real demons where the fathers in the Christian Church ( many of them Manichean's, like Saint Augustin) and not amongst the Pagans and Mithraists. It was the Christians who set Rome on fire and then blamed it on Nero.

Hahaha, I just said I was not into roleplaying. I'm into reality and the well-being of the mind. Cats and dogs are safe.

But seriously; don't you know that the consumption of haoma is illegal in most countries? Now how on earth do you expect that then to be a public activity? Just as an example.You overrate the value of keeping things public in the internet age. When things go public, this is precisely when matters get consumed and exploited and lose all their sacred value. And even are rewarded with prison sentences.My love life is not public either. I don't show it with cameras online.Now why should religious ritual be any more public than sex? Why not stay private?UshtaAlexander

2010/10/16 Parviz Varjavand

A word to the wise!

A lot of cats have been missing, also small dogs. They seem to get lost around the times these secret meetings take place. I don't care what some persons want to do in secret, but I can't stand it when poor little animals have to suffer.

söndag 3 oktober 2010

Hitler and Stalin were indeed both ETHICAL and not moralistic.Which goes to show that you have to decide WHICH ETHICS you are going to follow.Hitler's was Racist Ethics (may the strongest tribe win and kill all others), and Stalin's was Communist Ethics (The People must decide, but since nobody can ask the people, I personify The People and do as I see fit to suit my own self-interests, North Korea is Stalinist eve today).To me Zarathushtra was the first radical PRAGMATIST. His ethics was Pragmatist Ethics.UshtaAlexander

2010/10/2 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino,

There exists a deep and ancient hatred between those who consider themselves following God Given Moral Standards and those who believe they are Ethical by their own established standards. How do you propose to reconcile this enormous gulf? We have examples of persons committing horrible crimes both in the name of Ethics and Morality. Take the Inquisition which was a time of doing horrendous acts in the name of Morality, and on the other hand the religious persons might call Hitler as a person who committed his crimes in the name of Ethics; ethics as he would set the standards for.

This is very important for those of us (I assume like you, Alex, and I) who wish to push Zoroastrianism towards following Ethical standards rather than following Moral standards by the book (Gathas, Vandidad, what have you!). Alex wanting to push for secret orders of Mithraists setting their own ethical standards in their secret meetings does not help either, it makes the divide deeper. We just had a group posting on Ushta and trying to pass themselves as the followers of Anjoman Moghan Iran (Iran's Magi Assembly) and following their own secret High Priest. Nothing wrong with what they are doing, but when I asked more about who they might be and what they are teaching, they ran away and hid. Moobed Kamran Jamshidi also did not want o do anthing with them even though they had just congradulated him for his Sedre Pooshis performed in Russia. This is a perfect example of what happens when you have secret societies Alex, no one can trust you. How are you going to solve that problem? Your enemies will assume that you gather in secret and sacrifice and eat babies, and you will not be able to defend your selves by running away and hiding some more!

Dear SynThere's a great difference between "constructive" (ethics) and "good" (moralism). Most religions are moralizing, telling you what's good and what's evil. But Zarathushtra doesn't. You have to determine yourself what's the right to do, and then fully submit to it in an act of utmost authenticity. We do not strive towards goodness that has already been defined by authorities, but we are relentlessly pursuing the truth.